Response to “It’s All Downhill From Here” by David McCalmont
Mr. McCalmont raises important historical parallels regarding presidential approval ratings during wartime. History does show that short-term military success can generate temporary public support, followed by longer-term political consequences if conflicts become prolonged or poorly defined.
However, several key assumptions in the article deserve closer scrutiny.
First, comparing every modern military action to the Iraq War oversimplifies both context and strategy. The failures surrounding weapons of mass destruction in 2003 were tied to flawed intelligence assessments and a prolonged occupation strategy. Not every limited or targeted strike necessarily equates to open-ended regime change or nation-building. The scale, objectives, and exit strategy matter enormously.
Second, the claim that the United States acts primarily “in deference to a foreign nation’s interests” is asserted rather than demonstrated. U.S. policy toward Iran has spanned multiple administrations of both parties and has consistently been framed around nuclear proliferation concerns, regional security, and protection of U.S. personnel and allies. One may disagree with the policy, but it is inaccurate to reduce it to a simplistic “king/lackey” narrative without substantive evidence.
Third, the broader thesis that “war is addictive” and that one-seventh of the U.S. economy depends on perpetual conflict is rhetorically powerful but economically overstated. Defense spending is significant, but it is not the dominant engine of the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy is driven primarily by services, technology, consumer spending, healthcare, finance, and energy. While the military-industrial complex is influential, attributing bipartisan foreign policy decisions solely to profit motives ignores the complexity of geopolitical risk, deterrence strategy, and domestic political constraints.
Additionally, citing a Chinese Communist Party press release as validation of an anti-war argument deserves caution. The CCP’s messaging is not neutral commentary—it is strategic propaganda aimed at undermining U.S. credibility globally. Agreement on a narrow rhetorical point does not make the source reliable or aligned with democratic principles.
Finally, it is fair to warn about mission creep, escalation risks, and the historical pattern of approval ratings declining over time. That is prudent analysis. But it is premature to declare that “it’s all downhill from here” before outcomes, scope, and consequences are clear. Foreign policy is dynamic, and political trajectories depend heavily on how events unfold—not on historical inevitability.
Reasonable people can debate the wisdom of military action. What weakens the argument, however, is framing complex geopolitical events as predetermined cycles of addiction and corruption. That interpretation assumes motive and outcome without allowing for strategic nuance or evolving conditions.
History will judge any administration’s decisions. But it will likely do so based on results, not analogies alone.
It seems rather absurd to quote a Chinese government official on the subject of ‘war addiction’ when China itself will probably soon have the strongest military force in the world but has no other force threatening it. What are they motivated by other than to project such power to dominate other peoples and lands
I remember so vividly being just discharged from the Army in 1979, that it seems like yesterday. The US Embassy had just be sacked by Iranian “students” and I was fairly certain I was going to be recalled back into the military. Under a meek Jimmy Carter, that never happened and the result was decades of terror being emulated from the Iranian theocracy.
Today, time has run out for the Iranian regime, and it looks like retribution is finally underway.
Like so many voters, I supported Donald Trump for going against the grain and not supporting US military intervention and police actions across the world. What happened?
What happened was the savage attack on October 7th on Israel by Hamas psychopaths, changing everything. It is fair to say without October 7th, we probably wouldn’t be where we find ourselves today.
So many US past overtures by the Clinton, Obama and Biden administrations have failed miserably in an attempt to quell the bad behavior by the Islamic state.
Facing a possible nuclear armed Iran, Trump took decisive action, to which I am in the minority and support the President. Finally, justice is on the way for a criminal, rouge regime that murders opposition, executes dissidents and terrorizes women and gays.
One bit of irony is the predictable reaction by the liberal left. It would seem yet again, that they are in support of Dictatorships, criminality and terrorists. One simply can’t keep up with the numbers of flags these people are in support of and waving on our streets and freeways. One flag visibly missing during these “sit ins,” is our own American flag!
May this military operation be swift, violent and decisive. May those responsible for the evil, wicked state of Iran be held accountable. May the citizens of Iran rise up and overthrow this miserable regime, and may our service members come home safely.
Hahaha, and what do we call China? A peace addict wanting to take Taiwan, while surreptitiously buying up farmland near U.S. bases? What is their motivation? I don't see peace in their bigger picture
Another bloodletting for Israel. The Purim holiday is a celebration in Jewish tradition of a massacre of Persians. (Look it up.) The US govt satiated this Jewish bloodlust with the 2003 invasion of Iraq based on false claims and now, once again, on the eve of Purim, the Trump administration uses our blood, treasure and moral standing in the world to satiate the bloodlust promoted by the modern Jewish religion. God sees it all. Americans are being asked to die, and worse kill, for no valid US interest whatsoever. Americans are beginning to see the deep differences in Jewish values and Christian values and that "JudeoChristian" was a psyop pushed out in 1940 to help build support for creation of a discriminatory ethnostate in the Holy Land at the expense of fellow Christians. May God help us overcome the ghouls that have overtaken our society with blackmail and bribery and a mountain of lies. Christ, the most genius man to ever walk the earth, told us the truth will set us free. Seek the truth and boldly proclaim it with love in your heart for every human person made in the image and likeness of God. And don't ever fool yourself for a moment that abandoning the moral law will not have dire consequences that will be visited on our children and our children's children. We will reap what we sow. May God have mercy on our souls.
This comment moves far beyond criticism of foreign policy and into collective blame of Jewish people and Judaism itself. That is neither accurate nor morally defensible.
First, Purim is a Jewish holiday commemorating survival from an attempted extermination described in the Book of Esther. It is not a celebration of “massacre of Persians,” nor is it a modern political directive. Reducing a religious observance to “bloodlust” is a serious distortion.
Second, holding “the modern Jewish religion” responsible for U.S. military decisions is historically and factually incorrect. American foreign policy is shaped by elected officials, national security institutions, geopolitical calculations, and domestic politics. It is not dictated by a religion. The United States has a long record of bipartisan policy toward Iran that spans multiple administrations of both parties.
Third, language about “blackmail,” “bribery,” “ghouls,” and hidden control echoes classic antisemitic conspiracy tropes that have caused real harm throughout history. Criticizing Israeli government policy is legitimate political speech. Blaming Jews as a people for global events is not.
Fourth, invoking Christianity to contrast “Jewish values” versus “Christian values” misrepresents both traditions. Christianity emerged from Judaism. Jesus, his disciples, and the earliest Christians were Jewish. The term “Judeo-Christian” reflects shared moral and scriptural foundations, not a psychological operation.
Americans can and should debate whether military action serves U.S. interests. That debate should focus on strategy, legality, cost, and consequences — not on religion or ethnicity. When policy disagreements are framed as religious warfare, it poisons civil discourse and distracts from substantive analysis.
If we truly care about moral law, then collective guilt, dehumanization, and religious hostility are not consistent with it.
We can argue passionately about war and peace. But we should not revive old prejudices in the process.
Thank you Walt! Your informed and thoughtful responses are very much appreciated and, in my opinion, much needed in the ongoing conversations. I don’t do well even though I try…I get too triggered which is not very useful. So…thank you!!
The US and Israel just assassinated the 2nd most important leader in Shia Islam. It is too late to say religion is not a part of what we are seeing. I highly recommend you look into the history of Scofield Reference Bible and the conman that produced it. It promotes a false dual covenant theology that is promulgated by many Evangelical Christians, some of who draw paychecks directly from the state of Israel. The corruption of Christian theology is also a part of this insanely sick situation we find ourselves in. Why is Ambassador Huckabee saying Israel can take all the land of the Middle East? What is that about? Where does that insane, destabilizing, policy endorsing theft and war come from if not his twisted theology?
The only way to begin to improve the situation is to be honest about the important movements in our society. The US has been demonizing Muslims since 9/11 without a proper investigation of who was behind that attack. Iran is being tied in with "terrorism" without any objective definition of that term. Religion cannot be separated from this conflict. If you actually care about America and peace, you have to examine these issues, ideally with honor and integrity.
It absolutely is not a condemnation of all Jewish people as a whole. It is mostly Jewish people who protest these behaviors and beliefs in the Jewish community. That is a gross slander of my motives and a dishonest way to engage. Yes, it is a criticism of Judaism and Jewish war mongering propaganda by many religious and political leaders, such as Netenyahu himself who calls the people of Gaza Amelek. Pay attention. Don't blame the messenger.
If you are not aware of the differences in values between those who follow Christ and those who follow the people who rejected Him and had Him killed, then you should do a lot more theological research before commenting. Slandering a person as "reviving prejudices" for speaking about what is clearly being said and done in public is not only logically weak, it is also cowardly.
These contradictions have come to the fore as Americans watch the people of Gaza, Christians among them, being slaughtered on our dime. Why was the Catholic Church of the Holy Family in Gaza shelled? They see a Catholic woman struck from a religious liberty panel for saying Catholics do not embrace Zionism, an absolutely true statement since the Popes have always rejected any theological basis for Zionism. You can tell me to be silent, but I speak for the concerns of more and more Americans. If I am wrong, then you can prove me wrong with evidence and logic instead of name calling and slander. If I am right, we need to become informed and start standing up for the Christian values that formed the basis of Western civilization before it is too far gone.
I appreciate that you say your criticism is not directed at all Jewish people. That distinction matters. But some of the theological claims you’re making still require clarification.
First, Christianity does not teach collective guilt against the Jewish people for the death of Christ. The Catholic Church formally rejected that idea in Nostra Aetate (1965), which states clearly that Jews as a whole — then or now — cannot be held responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. Blaming “those who rejected Him and had Him killed” in a collective or enduring way is not consistent with mainstream Christian doctrine.
Second, Jesus Himself was Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. The early Church was Jewish. Christianity is not a religion that emerged in opposition to Judaism but one that emerged from within it. The theological disagreement between Christians and Jews concerns the identity of the Messiah — not moral worth, not inherent values, and not bloodline.
Third, criticizing actions of the Israeli government is legitimate. Many Christians, Jews, and secular observers criticize Prime Minister Netanyahu and specific policies. But criticism of a government’s conduct is not the same thing as attributing war, bloodlust, or propaganda to “Judaism” as a religion. Judaism, like Christianity, contains a wide range of interpretations and moral traditions.
Regarding Amalek: whether one agrees or disagrees with how certain Israeli leaders use biblical language, that is a political and rhetorical issue. It does not establish that Judaism as a faith promotes modern warfare. Christian leaders have also used biblical language to justify wars in history. That does not make Christianity inherently war-mongering.
On Zionism: You are correct that Catholic teaching does not treat modern political Zionism as a theological mandate. But Catholic teaching also rejects antisemitism and affirms the ongoing covenantal dignity of the Jewish people. Those two positions are not contradictory.
If we are going to frame this in explicitly Christian terms, then we must apply Christian standards consistently:
Christianity calls for love of neighbor — including religious neighbors.
Christianity distinguishes between governments and peoples.
Christianity warns against bearing false witness.
One can argue that U.S. foreign policy is misguided. One can argue that innocent people in Gaza are suffering. One can argue that American interests are not served by certain alliances. Those are policy arguments.
But framing this as a civilizational battle between “Christian values” and “Jewish values” moves into theological territory that most Christian churches — Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant — explicitly reject.
If we truly want to defend Christian civilization, then we defend it by upholding truth, precision, and charity — even when we are passionate.
Serious theological debate requires careful definitions, not broad generalizations.
"But framing this as a civilizational battle between “Christian values” and “Jewish values” moves into theological territory that most Christian churches — Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant — explicitly reject."
You claim to speak for quite a lot of Churches here. Can you prove this claim? To make it easier, can you just show me where the Catholic Church rejected this claim? The Catholic Church has been preaching of the dangers of all sorts of heresies, Talmudic Judaism only being one among many, for its entire existence.
This is what I said, "If you are not aware of the differences in values between those who follow Christ and those who follow the people who rejected Him and had Him killed..." I am not blaming all Jews or any present day Jews for the killing of Christ. I understand that the earliest followers of Christ were Jews. I am saying there was a theological split starting at the time of Christ - those who *follow* Christ and those who *follow* those who rejected Him and had Him killed. Following those who killed Him does not make you a killer or responsible for His death, but it does mean you are not repenting and are not becoming Baptized as Peter called the Jews to do.
What is the difference between someone who takes up their cross and follows Christ, King of a heavenly kingdom, versus those who follow the leadership and scholarship of those who rejected Him and are waiting for an earthly King? There are many differences. One is we Catholics believe the covenant is open to all human beings. We are not tribal. And we are called to love even our enemies. The commandments to not steal, bear false witness, covet apply as much to non-Christians as to Christians. Christians are taught to leave vengeance to God. Jews are not called to love their enemies and there is evidence of Jews being counseled to lie to protect fellow Jews.
Christians believe that God wrote the moral law on every human heart. That means any human being can feel what God is calling us to do and respond to that call. A Jewish person has that possibility as much as any other human being. We can never assume that just because someone is a Jew that they are less observant of the conscience that God, the creator of all, gave them. At the same time, we do have a right to examine the theology and teaching promoted in Judaism. Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky's book "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" might be a good place to start for people who have not looked into this before.
Every Christian is called to be innocent as doves and wise as serpents. Get better informed, but always hold reverence for the sacred in every human being created by God. And love everyone as God has commanded us to do.
I didn’t read Walt’s comments as name calling and slander. This is what you choose to believe. Not facts. More Jews in Israel detest Netanyahu than support him. That is also true in the U.S. Most were horrified by the Gaza war but the issues are complex. And…Jesus was killed by the Romans. And…history has been recorded by humans who are innately flawed and biased. We may never know the “truth”. That said, how we live our religious or spiritual beliefs today is what matters most, in my opinion…. whatever your lineage or chosen path. That matters.
Ok, that is your claim. Can you please define the term "anti-semitism" that you are applying to me? A lot of us feel very abused by the use of a term with a very fluid definition, so why not be responsible and give a clear definition so we know you are not just name-calling or just claiming to know the heart and motives of a person you don't even know. This is what Carrie Prejean Boller was never allowed to get nailed down on the Religious Liberty Commission panel...
Here’s what the Aimee Smith Substack profile (the @aimeesmith page) shows and what can be said about it:
What the Profile Says
The profile describes the author as an “Antiwar, anti-GMO activist and former Green Party leader who is now focusing on the spiritual dimension of the war against humanity.”
It also says her newsletter explores philosophical, theological, and historical roots that she believes will “protect us from those who seek to control us.”
The newsletter has a small number of subscribers (~50) and requires a subscription to read full posts.
What Her Writing Looks Like (Based on a Public Post)
A publicly viewable post on the Substack includes these elements:
Discussion of controversial current events (e.g., protests at a university about Israeli government actions).
Expresses criticism of institutions, media narratives, and both political left and right for failing to counter perceived “technocracy” and erosion of rights.
Blends political critique with claims about censorship, technocratic control, and loss of freedoms tied to modern technology and governance.
Comments on that article (from other readers) also include general anti-globalist and anti-technocratic rhetoric, including references to alleged elites, conspiracy language about control, and fears of loss of freedom.
I hope that consideration of the perspectives put forward in the above article will give pause to all isolationists and anti Zionists to view conflicts and war as a bit more complex than their comments indicate.
This point of view is completely blind as to Irans Twelver Shi'a Islam sect of religion. Iran was building a nuclear weapon and a missile delivery system solely to murder the "Great Satan" or the citizens of this country. Get a clue and study their intent. Their ruling party makes decisions solely upon their theology. We were a frog being in a pot being slowly brought to boil.
Is this a start of a war, or an ending to what already was a very long-standing war starting 47 years ago?
Game changer this time is the united front against Iran, by Iran's closest neighbors- props to the Abraham Accords for those names now being on this "war's" dance card against Iran, by those who have a critical need today to keep the Straights of Hormuz free and open.
The only war right now is against the last 7th Century warlord state of any major significance still standing in MENA. A 7th century warlord state with a limited stockpile of 21st century weaponry, funded as gesture of good will by our very own US President #44, on his way out the door in 2016.
Response to “It’s All Downhill From Here” by David McCalmont
Mr. McCalmont raises important historical parallels regarding presidential approval ratings during wartime. History does show that short-term military success can generate temporary public support, followed by longer-term political consequences if conflicts become prolonged or poorly defined.
However, several key assumptions in the article deserve closer scrutiny.
First, comparing every modern military action to the Iraq War oversimplifies both context and strategy. The failures surrounding weapons of mass destruction in 2003 were tied to flawed intelligence assessments and a prolonged occupation strategy. Not every limited or targeted strike necessarily equates to open-ended regime change or nation-building. The scale, objectives, and exit strategy matter enormously.
Second, the claim that the United States acts primarily “in deference to a foreign nation’s interests” is asserted rather than demonstrated. U.S. policy toward Iran has spanned multiple administrations of both parties and has consistently been framed around nuclear proliferation concerns, regional security, and protection of U.S. personnel and allies. One may disagree with the policy, but it is inaccurate to reduce it to a simplistic “king/lackey” narrative without substantive evidence.
Third, the broader thesis that “war is addictive” and that one-seventh of the U.S. economy depends on perpetual conflict is rhetorically powerful but economically overstated. Defense spending is significant, but it is not the dominant engine of the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy is driven primarily by services, technology, consumer spending, healthcare, finance, and energy. While the military-industrial complex is influential, attributing bipartisan foreign policy decisions solely to profit motives ignores the complexity of geopolitical risk, deterrence strategy, and domestic political constraints.
Additionally, citing a Chinese Communist Party press release as validation of an anti-war argument deserves caution. The CCP’s messaging is not neutral commentary—it is strategic propaganda aimed at undermining U.S. credibility globally. Agreement on a narrow rhetorical point does not make the source reliable or aligned with democratic principles.
Finally, it is fair to warn about mission creep, escalation risks, and the historical pattern of approval ratings declining over time. That is prudent analysis. But it is premature to declare that “it’s all downhill from here” before outcomes, scope, and consequences are clear. Foreign policy is dynamic, and political trajectories depend heavily on how events unfold—not on historical inevitability.
Reasonable people can debate the wisdom of military action. What weakens the argument, however, is framing complex geopolitical events as predetermined cycles of addiction and corruption. That interpretation assumes motive and outcome without allowing for strategic nuance or evolving conditions.
History will judge any administration’s decisions. But it will likely do so based on results, not analogies alone.
It seems rather absurd to quote a Chinese government official on the subject of ‘war addiction’ when China itself will probably soon have the strongest military force in the world but has no other force threatening it. What are they motivated by other than to project such power to dominate other peoples and lands
Could it be that they are concerned about the war-addicted USA coming for them?
I remember so vividly being just discharged from the Army in 1979, that it seems like yesterday. The US Embassy had just be sacked by Iranian “students” and I was fairly certain I was going to be recalled back into the military. Under a meek Jimmy Carter, that never happened and the result was decades of terror being emulated from the Iranian theocracy.
Today, time has run out for the Iranian regime, and it looks like retribution is finally underway.
Like so many voters, I supported Donald Trump for going against the grain and not supporting US military intervention and police actions across the world. What happened?
What happened was the savage attack on October 7th on Israel by Hamas psychopaths, changing everything. It is fair to say without October 7th, we probably wouldn’t be where we find ourselves today.
So many US past overtures by the Clinton, Obama and Biden administrations have failed miserably in an attempt to quell the bad behavior by the Islamic state.
Facing a possible nuclear armed Iran, Trump took decisive action, to which I am in the minority and support the President. Finally, justice is on the way for a criminal, rouge regime that murders opposition, executes dissidents and terrorizes women and gays.
One bit of irony is the predictable reaction by the liberal left. It would seem yet again, that they are in support of Dictatorships, criminality and terrorists. One simply can’t keep up with the numbers of flags these people are in support of and waving on our streets and freeways. One flag visibly missing during these “sit ins,” is our own American flag!
May this military operation be swift, violent and decisive. May those responsible for the evil, wicked state of Iran be held accountable. May the citizens of Iran rise up and overthrow this miserable regime, and may our service members come home safely.
Amen.
Well stated, Amen. “One flag visibly missing during these ‘sit-ins’ is our own American flag.”
Hahaha, and what do we call China? A peace addict wanting to take Taiwan, while surreptitiously buying up farmland near U.S. bases? What is their motivation? I don't see peace in their bigger picture
Exactly. China has a lot too lose from this war,including Saudi's oil which was just shut down.
Maybe we are cutting the head of the snake first. Let's see what happens with China and Russia.
Uranina people are celebrating . See Wilshire Blvd that was packed and banners supporting Trump
I'd think they'd no of the atrocities that Iran has committed to it's people including children.
On the Muslim Calendar the attack was on 9/11,BTW.
Another bloodletting for Israel. The Purim holiday is a celebration in Jewish tradition of a massacre of Persians. (Look it up.) The US govt satiated this Jewish bloodlust with the 2003 invasion of Iraq based on false claims and now, once again, on the eve of Purim, the Trump administration uses our blood, treasure and moral standing in the world to satiate the bloodlust promoted by the modern Jewish religion. God sees it all. Americans are being asked to die, and worse kill, for no valid US interest whatsoever. Americans are beginning to see the deep differences in Jewish values and Christian values and that "JudeoChristian" was a psyop pushed out in 1940 to help build support for creation of a discriminatory ethnostate in the Holy Land at the expense of fellow Christians. May God help us overcome the ghouls that have overtaken our society with blackmail and bribery and a mountain of lies. Christ, the most genius man to ever walk the earth, told us the truth will set us free. Seek the truth and boldly proclaim it with love in your heart for every human person made in the image and likeness of God. And don't ever fool yourself for a moment that abandoning the moral law will not have dire consequences that will be visited on our children and our children's children. We will reap what we sow. May God have mercy on our souls.
This comment moves far beyond criticism of foreign policy and into collective blame of Jewish people and Judaism itself. That is neither accurate nor morally defensible.
First, Purim is a Jewish holiday commemorating survival from an attempted extermination described in the Book of Esther. It is not a celebration of “massacre of Persians,” nor is it a modern political directive. Reducing a religious observance to “bloodlust” is a serious distortion.
Second, holding “the modern Jewish religion” responsible for U.S. military decisions is historically and factually incorrect. American foreign policy is shaped by elected officials, national security institutions, geopolitical calculations, and domestic politics. It is not dictated by a religion. The United States has a long record of bipartisan policy toward Iran that spans multiple administrations of both parties.
Third, language about “blackmail,” “bribery,” “ghouls,” and hidden control echoes classic antisemitic conspiracy tropes that have caused real harm throughout history. Criticizing Israeli government policy is legitimate political speech. Blaming Jews as a people for global events is not.
Fourth, invoking Christianity to contrast “Jewish values” versus “Christian values” misrepresents both traditions. Christianity emerged from Judaism. Jesus, his disciples, and the earliest Christians were Jewish. The term “Judeo-Christian” reflects shared moral and scriptural foundations, not a psychological operation.
Americans can and should debate whether military action serves U.S. interests. That debate should focus on strategy, legality, cost, and consequences — not on religion or ethnicity. When policy disagreements are framed as religious warfare, it poisons civil discourse and distracts from substantive analysis.
If we truly care about moral law, then collective guilt, dehumanization, and religious hostility are not consistent with it.
We can argue passionately about war and peace. But we should not revive old prejudices in the process.
Thank you Walt! Your informed and thoughtful responses are very much appreciated and, in my opinion, much needed in the ongoing conversations. I don’t do well even though I try…I get too triggered which is not very useful. So…thank you!!
The US and Israel just assassinated the 2nd most important leader in Shia Islam. It is too late to say religion is not a part of what we are seeing. I highly recommend you look into the history of Scofield Reference Bible and the conman that produced it. It promotes a false dual covenant theology that is promulgated by many Evangelical Christians, some of who draw paychecks directly from the state of Israel. The corruption of Christian theology is also a part of this insanely sick situation we find ourselves in. Why is Ambassador Huckabee saying Israel can take all the land of the Middle East? What is that about? Where does that insane, destabilizing, policy endorsing theft and war come from if not his twisted theology?
The only way to begin to improve the situation is to be honest about the important movements in our society. The US has been demonizing Muslims since 9/11 without a proper investigation of who was behind that attack. Iran is being tied in with "terrorism" without any objective definition of that term. Religion cannot be separated from this conflict. If you actually care about America and peace, you have to examine these issues, ideally with honor and integrity.
You might want to go attack Tal Shelav (doesn't sound like a christian name) for reporting on this.
https://alethonews.com/2026/02/28/timing-of-us-israel-attack-on-iran-bears-symbolic-meaning-in-judaism/
It absolutely is not a condemnation of all Jewish people as a whole. It is mostly Jewish people who protest these behaviors and beliefs in the Jewish community. That is a gross slander of my motives and a dishonest way to engage. Yes, it is a criticism of Judaism and Jewish war mongering propaganda by many religious and political leaders, such as Netenyahu himself who calls the people of Gaza Amelek. Pay attention. Don't blame the messenger.
If you are not aware of the differences in values between those who follow Christ and those who follow the people who rejected Him and had Him killed, then you should do a lot more theological research before commenting. Slandering a person as "reviving prejudices" for speaking about what is clearly being said and done in public is not only logically weak, it is also cowardly.
These contradictions have come to the fore as Americans watch the people of Gaza, Christians among them, being slaughtered on our dime. Why was the Catholic Church of the Holy Family in Gaza shelled? They see a Catholic woman struck from a religious liberty panel for saying Catholics do not embrace Zionism, an absolutely true statement since the Popes have always rejected any theological basis for Zionism. You can tell me to be silent, but I speak for the concerns of more and more Americans. If I am wrong, then you can prove me wrong with evidence and logic instead of name calling and slander. If I am right, we need to become informed and start standing up for the Christian values that formed the basis of Western civilization before it is too far gone.
I appreciate that you say your criticism is not directed at all Jewish people. That distinction matters. But some of the theological claims you’re making still require clarification.
First, Christianity does not teach collective guilt against the Jewish people for the death of Christ. The Catholic Church formally rejected that idea in Nostra Aetate (1965), which states clearly that Jews as a whole — then or now — cannot be held responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. Blaming “those who rejected Him and had Him killed” in a collective or enduring way is not consistent with mainstream Christian doctrine.
Second, Jesus Himself was Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. The early Church was Jewish. Christianity is not a religion that emerged in opposition to Judaism but one that emerged from within it. The theological disagreement between Christians and Jews concerns the identity of the Messiah — not moral worth, not inherent values, and not bloodline.
Third, criticizing actions of the Israeli government is legitimate. Many Christians, Jews, and secular observers criticize Prime Minister Netanyahu and specific policies. But criticism of a government’s conduct is not the same thing as attributing war, bloodlust, or propaganda to “Judaism” as a religion. Judaism, like Christianity, contains a wide range of interpretations and moral traditions.
Regarding Amalek: whether one agrees or disagrees with how certain Israeli leaders use biblical language, that is a political and rhetorical issue. It does not establish that Judaism as a faith promotes modern warfare. Christian leaders have also used biblical language to justify wars in history. That does not make Christianity inherently war-mongering.
On Zionism: You are correct that Catholic teaching does not treat modern political Zionism as a theological mandate. But Catholic teaching also rejects antisemitism and affirms the ongoing covenantal dignity of the Jewish people. Those two positions are not contradictory.
If we are going to frame this in explicitly Christian terms, then we must apply Christian standards consistently:
Christianity rejects collective blame.
Christianity rejects hatred toward entire peoples.
Christianity calls for love of neighbor — including religious neighbors.
Christianity distinguishes between governments and peoples.
Christianity warns against bearing false witness.
One can argue that U.S. foreign policy is misguided. One can argue that innocent people in Gaza are suffering. One can argue that American interests are not served by certain alliances. Those are policy arguments.
But framing this as a civilizational battle between “Christian values” and “Jewish values” moves into theological territory that most Christian churches — Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant — explicitly reject.
If we truly want to defend Christian civilization, then we defend it by upholding truth, precision, and charity — even when we are passionate.
Serious theological debate requires careful definitions, not broad generalizations.
"But framing this as a civilizational battle between “Christian values” and “Jewish values” moves into theological territory that most Christian churches — Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant — explicitly reject."
You claim to speak for quite a lot of Churches here. Can you prove this claim? To make it easier, can you just show me where the Catholic Church rejected this claim? The Catholic Church has been preaching of the dangers of all sorts of heresies, Talmudic Judaism only being one among many, for its entire existence.
This is what I said, "If you are not aware of the differences in values between those who follow Christ and those who follow the people who rejected Him and had Him killed..." I am not blaming all Jews or any present day Jews for the killing of Christ. I understand that the earliest followers of Christ were Jews. I am saying there was a theological split starting at the time of Christ - those who *follow* Christ and those who *follow* those who rejected Him and had Him killed. Following those who killed Him does not make you a killer or responsible for His death, but it does mean you are not repenting and are not becoming Baptized as Peter called the Jews to do.
What is the difference between someone who takes up their cross and follows Christ, King of a heavenly kingdom, versus those who follow the leadership and scholarship of those who rejected Him and are waiting for an earthly King? There are many differences. One is we Catholics believe the covenant is open to all human beings. We are not tribal. And we are called to love even our enemies. The commandments to not steal, bear false witness, covet apply as much to non-Christians as to Christians. Christians are taught to leave vengeance to God. Jews are not called to love their enemies and there is evidence of Jews being counseled to lie to protect fellow Jews.
Christians believe that God wrote the moral law on every human heart. That means any human being can feel what God is calling us to do and respond to that call. A Jewish person has that possibility as much as any other human being. We can never assume that just because someone is a Jew that they are less observant of the conscience that God, the creator of all, gave them. At the same time, we do have a right to examine the theology and teaching promoted in Judaism. Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky's book "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" might be a good place to start for people who have not looked into this before.
Every Christian is called to be innocent as doves and wise as serpents. Get better informed, but always hold reverence for the sacred in every human being created by God. And love everyone as God has commanded us to do.
I didn’t read Walt’s comments as name calling and slander. This is what you choose to believe. Not facts. More Jews in Israel detest Netanyahu than support him. That is also true in the U.S. Most were horrified by the Gaza war but the issues are complex. And…Jesus was killed by the Romans. And…history has been recorded by humans who are innately flawed and biased. We may never know the “truth”. That said, how we live our religious or spiritual beliefs today is what matters most, in my opinion…. whatever your lineage or chosen path. That matters.
Blatant anti-Semitism
Ok, that is your claim. Can you please define the term "anti-semitism" that you are applying to me? A lot of us feel very abused by the use of a term with a very fluid definition, so why not be responsible and give a clear definition so we know you are not just name-calling or just claiming to know the heart and motives of a person you don't even know. This is what Carrie Prejean Boller was never allowed to get nailed down on the Religious Liberty Commission panel...
Here’s what the Aimee Smith Substack profile (the @aimeesmith page) shows and what can be said about it:
What the Profile Says
The profile describes the author as an “Antiwar, anti-GMO activist and former Green Party leader who is now focusing on the spiritual dimension of the war against humanity.”
It also says her newsletter explores philosophical, theological, and historical roots that she believes will “protect us from those who seek to control us.”
The newsletter has a small number of subscribers (~50) and requires a subscription to read full posts.
What Her Writing Looks Like (Based on a Public Post)
A publicly viewable post on the Substack includes these elements:
Discussion of controversial current events (e.g., protests at a university about Israeli government actions).
Expresses criticism of institutions, media narratives, and both political left and right for failing to counter perceived “technocracy” and erosion of rights.
Blends political critique with claims about censorship, technocratic control, and loss of freedoms tied to modern technology and governance.
Comments on that article (from other readers) also include general anti-globalist and anti-technocratic rhetoric, including references to alleged elites, conspiracy language about control, and fears of loss of freedom.
I don't think subscriptions are required, but if so, they are available for free.
https://www.zinebriboua.com/p/the-iran-question-is-all-about-china
I hope that consideration of the perspectives put forward in the above article will give pause to all isolationists and anti Zionists to view conflicts and war as a bit more complex than their comments indicate.
We need to get a fiscally conservative Govener in California! Lets get behing Steve Hilton
This point of view is completely blind as to Irans Twelver Shi'a Islam sect of religion. Iran was building a nuclear weapon and a missile delivery system solely to murder the "Great Satan" or the citizens of this country. Get a clue and study their intent. Their ruling party makes decisions solely upon their theology. We were a frog being in a pot being slowly brought to boil.
Is this a start of a war, or an ending to what already was a very long-standing war starting 47 years ago?
Game changer this time is the united front against Iran, by Iran's closest neighbors- props to the Abraham Accords for those names now being on this "war's" dance card against Iran, by those who have a critical need today to keep the Straights of Hormuz free and open.
The only war right now is against the last 7th Century warlord state of any major significance still standing in MENA. A 7th century warlord state with a limited stockpile of 21st century weaponry, funded as gesture of good will by our very own US President #44, on his way out the door in 2016.
Where is BOB when I need him :)
David, I agree.
We are addicted to war. I do not think it is just one reason why, but at the high level, we are addicted.
This begs the question, why should we be addicted to war?
We are not addicted to war.